Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would second Cuba. Also the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. China under Mao. The German "Bauernkrieg" in 1525.
But it begs the overall questions what exactly is an uprising peasant? And at what point is the revolting peasant becoming a politician or intellectual? Is a social unrest designed, influenced, manipulated by other forces already an uprising? The outcome and it's history will be written by the winner.
This is a good question. They entered the pharse "besides the American Revolution", but then several of us pointed out that was anything but a peasant revolt. Cuba, Cambodia, China and Russia as well, were again led and supported by people who were not really "peasants" in that the entire movement began with and was supported by the lowest social class to overthrow the current order. In all of the examples, there were elements of that nations version of bourgeoisie or inelligentsia that supported the revolutions.
The Bauernkrieg was brutally suppressed and was anything but succesful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InaPickle7
I don't know... perhaps the French Revolution? o.O Plenty of cheesed off peasants revolting there.
As stated earlier, more or a bourgeois revolt with peasant support. The Revolution had support in some form from virtually all non-royal social classes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felix C
The answer is no based on the term peasant revolt which indicates a the members and leaders were sourced from those in feudal agrarian servitude against a higher social order.
I'd have to agree. I don't think there has ever been a succesful "peasant" revolt.
The French Revolution from the 1770s which the ruling class were killed and this lasted about three years , and some what changed the culture to more of a liberal culture
The French Revolution was a movement of the bourgeoisie, not the peasantry,
which largely opposed it.
Nobody seems to have mentioned the overthrow of the Shah of Iran in 1979, led by a religious fanatic more at home in the Seventh Century -- or the economic disruption, the barbarities, the persecution of people whose only "crime" was pursuit of a better secular life, or the bloody war with a neighboring nation haring basically the same religion, but another bloodthirsty tyrant.
The unpleasant fact is that protecting the options and progress of emerging democracies requires keeping the loudest and most simplistic of the Great Unwashed away from power until basic education and renunciation of the simple answers peddled by absolutists of the Left, Right, and whatever classification is assigned to the loudest of the pseudo-religious crackpots has been accomplished; otherwise, they'll eat the seed corn.
It's like the old ilne in the comic strip The Wizard of Id:
Sire, the peasants are revolting! ---- Yes, they surely are.
Most of the leaders and organizers of the American Revolution were considered anything BUT peasants. Most of them were firmly part of the landowing or mercantile class, the "non-titled" upper class of British society aka the bourgeoisie.
Again, like the American Revolution, the French Revolution was primarily a revolt of the bourgeoisie. In addition the Third Estate had supporters from the clergy (First Estate) and nobility (Second Estate).
***
I cannot think of any true "peasant" revolt in the west that was succesful in achieving their stated goal and overthrowing the status quo for anything beyond a temporary time period. However, many of the various revolts did work to change perceptions and measures. The revolts worked to slowly edge the general society away from the fuedal system. In this way, while there were no "succesful" direct peasant revolts, the society eventually evolved to the point where there existed "high class peasants" could form the nucleus of a progressive body actually capable of carrying out a revolution.
But were these mercantile classes, or landowners descended from noble families in England? Or are they descended salt of the earth types that came to colonize because the it offered the opportunity to increase their status? I understand some of the Southern Revolutionaries, like Jefferson and Washington himself, were large plantation owners with multiple slaves, but how wealthy were they compared to the Blue Bloods of Europe at that time?
Ummm, history lesson number one...the American Revolution was ANYTHING BUT a "revolt by the peasants"
Fully two thirds of colonists opposed it when it started...and it was the wealthy landowners who started it - you'll find their names on the Declaration.
Then why did they even give us the Bill of Rights and the Constitution then? If the American Revolution is like the Mexican Revolution, and the other Latin American Revolution, would you say that this country is actually very similar to those societies?
Was the Bill of rights and the Constitution the only way they could get some support from the lower classes and get them to take arms? How were they supposed to keep their own positions in society, and ensure it stays in the family if they are giving all the peasants so many rights?
Then why did they even give us the Bill of Rights and the Constitution then? If the American Revolution is like the Mexican Revolution, and the other Latin American Revolution, would you say that this country is actually very similar to those societies?
Was the Bill of rights and the Constitution the only way they could get some support from the lower classes and get them to take arms? How were they supposed to keep their own positions in society, and ensure it stays in the family if they are giving all the peasants so many rights?
First of all, there never was anything resembling a "peasant class" in the American colonies, primarily because European settlement was too new, land was too plentiful, and labor was too expensive for a peasant class such as existed in Europe to develop. Except for enslaved Africans, it was entirely possible for somebody to start with nothing in the colonies and see his grandchildren become the equivalent of the landed gentry. Possibilities like that take the stuffing out of would-be revolutionaries.
Secondly, the American Revolution began in 1776 and ended officially in 1783 with the Treaty of Paris (most of the fighting had ended in 1781 with the surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown). The US Constitution was written by a convention in 1787 and ratified by states in 1788 so that it became the law of the land in 1789. In other words, the Constitution was written several years after the US achieved its independence.
The US Constitution is really a rather conservative document, even by 18th century standards, in that much of it simply sets a framework for a national government, limits some things that that government can't do, and regulates state/federal interactions. It created a strong national government at the expense of the individual states and contained no guarantees for individuals.
From the perspective of shopkeepers, small farmers, and other people of modest means, the Articles of Confederation were probably a better deal, especially in those states where the state governments had been radicalized by the rhetoric of independence and political rebellion, and guaranteed individual rights in their state constitutions. The Bill of Rights was promised and added to the Constitution to win the support of the voters in these radicalized states who were reluctant to give up the rights they were guaranteed by their own state constitutions. It was a bonus for citizens in the less radicalized states. Also note that most Supreme Court rulings that deal with individual rights cite one or more amendments rather than with the US Constitution.
In 1788, voting rights were restricted to white adult males who owned a certain amount of property, and that was the group who would vote for/against the Constitution and Bill of Rights. This would change over the next 30 plus years until the Jacksonian era when universal white manhood suffrage became the norm.
I also think you have your revolutions confused.
The American Revolution was a political war for independence from Great Britain. While there were some significant social ramifications from the war, it was not a social revolution that fundamentally changed society. The leaders of the American Revolution (as individuals and as a class) not only remained its leaders throughout the actual war but became the leaders of the new country.
The Mexican Revolution started as a political rebellion against a dictator and turned into an economic and social revolution that fundamentally changed Mexican society. Mexico in 1910 did have an oppressed peasant class, and while they didn't "lead" the revolution, they certainly took part in dismantling the existing status quo. In this way, the Mexican Revolution is similar to the French, Chinese, and Cuban revolutions: all fundamentally and permanently changed the societies involved.
Has there ever been a successful revolt by peasants to overthrow their oppressive regimes in the West or Middle East.
I do not count the Moscovites expulsion of the Golden Horde because that was not done by peasants or someone of lowly birth.
What Golden Horde being overthrown has got to do with peasant revolts???
This was a matter of a national defense - the overthrowing of foreign overlords, and both Russian princes and Russian peasants and everyone in between took part in it.
The classical peasant revolts in Russia took place already later - as in late 1600ies and 1700ies.
First of all, there never was anything resembling a "peasant class" in the American colonies, primarily because European settlement was too new, land was too plentiful, and labor was too expensive for a peasant class such as existed in Europe to develop.
Thank you.
Peasants - it's soooo...1300ies-1600ies for Europe; it belongs with feudal system, which was abolished there by 1600ies from what I remember and the new class of "burgers" was born. ))))
Peasantry in a classical sense of it remained only in Russia, since in Russia surfdom was abolished only in 1860ies.
So basically yes, in this respect you can compare only slaves in the US and Russian surfs; the rest of peasants in Europe were already free, comprising the whole new class of burgers ( meaning being their own masters and making their own money.)
First of all, there never was anything resembling a "peasant class" in the American colonies, primarily because European settlement was too new, land was too plentiful, and labor was too expensive for a peasant class such as existed in Europe to develop. Except for enslaved Africans, it was entirely possible for somebody to start with nothing in the colonies and see his grandchildren become the equivalent of the landed gentry. Possibilities like that take the stuffing out of would-be revolutionaries.
Secondly, the American Revolution began in 1776 and ended officially in 1783 with the Treaty of Paris (most of the fighting had ended in 1781 with the surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown). The US Constitution was written by a convention in 1787 and ratified by states in 1788 so that it became the law of the land in 1789. In other words, the Constitution was written several years after the US achieved its independence.
The US Constitution is really a rather conservative document, even by 18th century standards, in that much of it simply sets a framework for a national government, limits some things that that government can't do, and regulates state/federal interactions. It created a strong national government at the expense of the individual states and contained no guarantees for individuals.
From the perspective of shopkeepers, small farmers, and other people of modest means, the Articles of Confederation were probably a better deal, especially in those states where the state governments had been radicalized by the rhetoric of independence and political rebellion, and guaranteed individual rights in their state constitutions. The Bill of Rights was promised and added to the Constitution to win the support of the voters in these radicalized states who were reluctant to give up the rights they were guaranteed by their own state constitutions. It was a bonus for citizens in the less radicalized states. Also note that most Supreme Court rulings that deal with individual rights cite one or more amendments rather than with the US Constitution.
In 1788, voting rights were restricted to white adult males who owned a certain amount of property, and that was the group who would vote for/against the Constitution and Bill of Rights. This would change over the next 30 plus years until the Jacksonian era when universal white manhood suffrage became the norm.
I also think you have your revolutions confused.
The American Revolution was a political war for independence from Great Britain. While there were some significant social ramifications from the war, it was not a social revolution that fundamentally changed society. The leaders of the American Revolution (as individuals and as a class) not only remained its leaders throughout the actual war but became the leaders of the new country.
The Mexican Revolution started as a political rebellion against a dictator and turned into an economic and social revolution that fundamentally changed Mexican society. Mexico in 1910 did have an oppressed peasant class, and while they didn't "lead" the revolution, they certainly took part in dismantling the existing status quo. In this way, the Mexican Revolution is similar to the French, Chinese, and Cuban revolutions: all fundamentally and permanently changed the societies involved.
Wow, there has always been this trend when I was a school boy, to make you think the revolution was about the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution. I always assumed they came out with that document before the war ended. You were made to think this country was founded on the principles of equality and freedom for all (well for white men, which I guess was a start in the right direction). And then later on the Civil War and civil rights movements, and Sufferage Movements were about trying to further fulfill the promises in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
So it turns out the Bill of Rights and Constitution were just the upper class's way of suckering the lower masses to follow them huh? Man, if even warfare does not work, then I guess all those minimum wage, underpaid, underemployed, and out of work, Occupy Movement people are basically screwed, and there aint nothing they can do. Not that I was advocating an open armed rebellion when I started this thread.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
